m)v 



mw's'-. :.■>'■- ■•'■■■■ 

fcll 
fflfei: 



n!ff§ 
'"til 



\\v,V,VtViV;.' 



• ■ 




gtiNF 



#& 




Bunk 



i 






7 



^_b£ 







CHANNING'S LETTER 



TO THE 



ABOLITIONISTS, 

WITH COMMENTS. 



/ 



LETTER 









4 - 
TO TUP. 



ABOLITIONISTb, 



BY WILLIAM E. CHANNIKG. 



WITH COMMENTS. 



First published in the Liberator, Dec. 22, 1837- 



BOSTON: 

PRINTED BY ISAAC KNAPP, 

25,CORNHILL. 

1837. 









"-/ 



(5*-.>, i(*Iu" 



■/■ 



LETT 



Boston, Dec. 14, 1837. 
My Friends : 

A recent event induces me to address to you 
a few remarks. I trust you will not ascribe 
them to a love of dictation, and esp< iaiiy that 
you will not think me capable ol ring a 

word of censure, in deference to th judices 

and passions of your opposers. Mr pathies 
are with the oppressed and persecut- I have 

labored, in a darker day than this, t< vi uiicate 
your rights; and nothing would tempt me at 
this moment to speak a disapproving word, if 
I thought I should give the slightest counte- 
nance to the violence under which you have 
suffered. I have spoken of the slight service 
which I have rendered, not as a claim for grat- 
itude ; for I only performed a plain duty; but 
as giving me a title to a candid construction of 
what I am now to offer. 

You well know, that I have not been satisfied 
with all your modes of operation. I have par- 
ticularly made objections to the organization 
and union of numerous and wide-spread socie- 
ties for the subversion of slavery. I have be- 
lieved, however, that many of the dangerous 
tendencies of such an association would be ob- 



1 by your adoption of what is called ' the 

.' in other words, by your un- 

i elf-defence. 

To I is feature of your society, i have looked 

;i> ;, e, that your zeal, even if it should 

proi ive, would not work much harm. 

You can judge, then, of the sorrow with which 

of the tragedy of Alton, where one of 

your respected brethren fell with arms in his 

hands. 1 felt, indeed, that his course was jus- 

I ; by the 1 iw s of hi ; country, and by the es- 

tabiished opinions and practi< e of the civilized 

world. 1 Ith, too, that the violence, un 

which he fell, regarded as an assault on the 

. ami our dean st rights, deserved the same 
reprobation from the friendsof free institutions, 
as if he had fallen an unresisting victim. But 
J fell that a cloud had gathered over your soci- 

and that a dangerous precedent had been 
given in the cause of humanity. So strong was 
this impression, that whilst this event found its 
way into other pulpits, 1 was unwilling to make 
it the topic of a religious discourse, hut prefer- 
red to i cpn 5S my reprobation of it in another 
place, where it would be viewed only in its 
bearings on civil and political rights. My hope 
was, that the members of your society, whilst 
the} would do honor to the Tearless spirit of 
your fallen brother, would still, with one loud 
voice, proclaim their disapprobation of his last 
act, and their sorrow that through him a cause 
of philanthropy had been stained with blood. 
In t is, I iiin sorry to say that J have been dls- 
apoointed! 1 have Been, indeed, no justifica- 
tion of the act. I have semi a lew disapprov- 
ing sentences, but no such clear and general 
testimony against this error of the lamented 



Lovejoy, as is needed to give nssurance against 
its repetition. I have missed the true tone in 
'the Emancipator,' the organ of your National 
Society. I account for this silence, by }our 
strong sympathy with your slaughtered friend, 
and by your feeling as if one, who had so gen- 
erously given himself to the cause, deserved 
nothing but praise. Allow me to say, that 
hero you err. The individual is nothing, in 
comparison with the truth. Bring out the truth, 
suffer who may. The fact, that a good man 
has fallen through a mistaken conception of 
duty, makes it more necessary to expose the 
error. Death, -courageously met in a good 
cause by a respected friend, may throw a false 
lustre over dangerous principles which were 
joined with his virtues. Besides, we do not 
dishonor a friend in acknowledging him to 
have erred. The best men err. The most 
honored defenders of religion and virtue have 
sometimes been impelled, by the very fervor 
which made them great, into rash courses. I 
regret, then, that your disapprobation of Mr. 
Love joy's resistance to force has not been as 
earnest, as your grateful acknowledgments of 
his self-consecration to a holy cause. 

By these remarks, I do not mean, that T have 
adopted ' the peace principle ' to the full extent 
of my late venerated friend, Dr. Worcester, 
whose spirit, were he living, would be bowed 
down by the sad story of Alton. I do not 
say, that a man may in no case defend him- 
self by force. But, it may be laid down as 
a rule, hardly admitting an exception, that 
an enterprize of Christian philanthropy is not 
to be carried on by force ; that it is time 
for philanthropy to stop, when it can only ad- 



6 



vance by wading through blood. If God doea 
not allow ii> to forward a work of love without 
fight in g for it, the presumption is exceedingly 
.lit it is not the work, which he has 
given ns id do Is it asked, how such a caues, 
if assailed, is to be advanced? 1 answer, by 
appeals to the laws, and by appeals to the mor- 
al sent iment and the moral sympathies of the 
community. I answer, by resolute patience 
andheroic suffering. If patience and suffering, 
if truth and love will not touch a community, 
certainly violence will avail nothing. What! 
(•!), whose starting point is the love of 
every human being, hope to make their way by 
slaughter? Shall a cause, which relies on the 
inculcation of the disinterested spirit of Christi- 
anity a- its main instrument, seek aid in deadly 
.' Are we not shocked by this incon- 
gruity of means and ends t What fellowship 
has moral suasion with brute force? What con- 
cord between the report of the rifle and the 
teachings of philanthropy ? 

Let not this language be understood as in 
any measure extenuating the guilt of Mr. Love- 
joy's murderers. They stand on the same 
ground ;is if they had slain an unresisting man. 
Their crime began before he took arms. Their 
crime drove him to arms. Because his cause 
was too philanthropic and holy to allow him to 
fight for it, are we therefore to justify the vio- 
lence winch drove him to the use of force 1 
Our country is greatly dishonored by the apathy 
with which the death of this victim to our 
most sacn d rights has been received. Had any 
other man but an abolitionist fallen in defence 
ol property and the press, how many now cold 
Would have spoken with indignation ! Here 



we learn how little the freedom of the press, con- 
sidered as a. principle, Is understood by our cit- 
izens ; and how few are prepared to maintain 
it on its true ground. Unless this freedom be 
complicated with a cause which they approve, 
the multitude care little for its violation. Un- 
less itbe wrested from their own party or friends, 
they will not trouble themselves with its de- 
fence; and here lies its danger. This freedom 
will never be assailed but in the person of an 
unpopular man ; and unless defended in this 
case, will not be defended at all. The press of 
a powerful party will never be stormed, nor its 
editor shot. From such violence, the right of 
free discussion has nothing to fear. It is 
through a weak party, through the editor who 
resists public sentiment, that the freedom of 
the press is to receive its deadly wounds. For 
these reasons, I felt that there was a peculiar 
call for solemn public remonstrance against the 
outrage at Alton. In lamenting that Sir. Love- 
joy died with arms in his hands, I do not palliate 
the crime of his foes, or diminish the obligation 
of every citizen to lift his voice against this fear- 
ful violation of civil rights. 

Nothing is plainer 'han that Mr. Lovejoy, 
had he succeeded in his defence, could not 
have accomplished his purpose, but would have 
placed him in a position more unfavorable to 
doing good than before. Suppose him, by a 
sustained and well directed fire, to have repelled 
his assailants. Would he have planted his 
press at Alton ? The following morning would 
have'revealed the street strewn with dead bodies. 
Relatives, friends, the whole people of the sur- 
rounding country, would have ru hed to the 
spot. What rage would have boiled in a thou- 



8 

».\s of vengeance would 
i from a thousand lips! The men, 
d en jaged in the de» 
'the press, would probably have been 
lorn limb from limb at the moment. If not, 
ive dogged them night and 
: and we should have been startled with 
. | orts of murders, till the hist vic- 
tim had fallen. Or suppose .Mr. Lovejoy to 
fled with hands stained with blood ; could 
he have preached with success the doctrines of 
Jove I Would not that horrible night have been 
d with all his future labors ? Happy- 
it for himself, happy for your cause, that 
under such circumstances he fell. I beg that 
this I ■ may not be so construed, as if I 

question the moral or religious worth of Mr. 
. [know nothing of him but good, except 
his last error : and that error does not amaze me. 
That a man hunted by ferocious foes, threat- 
I with indignities to his person, and with 
death ; and at the same time conscious of the 
I his work, conscious that civil 
rights, as well as the interests of the oppressed, 
involved in his decision ; that a man, so 
luld fail in judgment, we need not won- 
He knew that the constitution and laws 
side. He knew that the prevalent 
i of the precepts of Christ, which 

. was on his 

comprehend, how a good 

man, bo placed, should have- erred. I believe 

in his | to do and suffer for great 

truths and man's dearest rights. God forbid 

I h iuld give the slightest countenance 

- of men, who, had he fallen on their 

iu! 1 have lauded him to the skies. 



9 



It seems to mo of great importance, that you 
should steadily disavow this resort to force by 
Mr. Lovejoy. There are peculiar reasons for 
it ' Your position in our country is peculiar, 
and makes it important that you should be 
viewed as incapable of resorting to violent 

means. 

In the first place, you are a large arid grpw- 
ino- party, and are possessed with a fervent 
zeal, such as has been unknown since the be- 
o-innino- of our revolutionary conflict. At the 
same tune, you are distrusted, and, still more, 
hated by a multitude of your fellow-citizens. 
Here, then, are the elements of deadly strife. 
From masses so hostile, so inflamed there is 
reason to fear tumults, conflicts, bloodshed. 
What is it which has prevented these sad results 
in the past, in the days of your weakness 
Your forbearance ; your unwillingness to meet 
force, by force. Had you adopted the means 
of defence, which any other party, so perse- 
cuted, would have chosen, our streets mignt 
a-ain and again have flowed with blood, oo- 
ciety might have been shaken by the conflict. 
If now, in your strength, you take the sword, 
and repay blow with "blow, what is not to be 
feared 1 "it is one of the objections to great 
associations, that they accumulate a power, 
which, in seasons of excitement and exasper- 
ation, threatens public commotions and I which 
may even turn our country into a field of battle. 
I say, then, that if you choose to organize so- 
vast a force for a cause which awakens neice 
passions, you must adopt < the-peace pnncip e 
L your inviolable rule. You must tr«t »n the 
laws, and in the moral sympathies of the conn 
man ty. You must try the power of Buffering 



10 



for truth. The first christians tried this among 

communities more ferocious than our own. 
You have yourselves tried it, and through it 
have made rapid progress. To desert it might 
be to plunge the country into fearful contests, 
and to rob your cause of all its sanctity. 

] proceed to another consideration. The 
South has denounced you as incendiaries; has 
predicted, from your associated efforts, insur- 
rection and massacre within its borders. And 
what has been the reply which you and your 
friends have made? You and they have point- 
ed to the prevalence of the peace-principle in 
your ranks, as a security against such effects. 
You have said, that you shrunk from the asser- 
tion of rights by physical force ; that, could 
you approach the slave, you should teach him 
patience under wrongs, and should spare no 
effort to warn him against bloody and violent 
means of redress. What becomes of this de- 
fence, if you begin to wield the sword ? Deep- 
ly moved as you are by the injuries of the slave, 
can you be expected to preach to him submis- 
sion and peace, if you yourselves shall have 
caught the spirit of war, the scent of blood ? 
Will the south have no cause of alarm, when the 
em :mi«8 of its ''domestic institutions' shall have 
sprung up from unresisting sufferers into warri- 
ors I Will not your foes at the North be armed 
with new weapons for your ruin? To me it 
seems, that if you choose to array your force 
under the standard of a vast organization, you 
are hound to give a pledge to the country that 
you will not violate its peace. Hitherto, I 
have appealed confidently to your pacific princi- 
ples as securities against all wrongs. 1 have 
seen with indignation the violence of cow- 



11 

ardly and unprincipled men directed, against 
an unresisting band. I trust that your friends 
will never have cause to grow faint in your de- 
fence. I trust that the tragedy of Alton will 
draw from you new assurances of your trust in 
God, in the power of truth, and in the moral 
sympathies of a christian people. 

I have now accomplished the chief end which 
I proposed to myself in this communication. 
But the same spirit, which has suggested the 
preceding remarks, induces me to glance at 
other topics. This spirit is a most friendly one, 
a sincere desire for your purity and success. 
I have more than once, as you well know, 
lamented the disposition of some, perhaps 
many of your members, to adopt violent forms 
of speech. In reply to this complaint, it has 
been said that the people, to be awakened, must 
be spoken to with strength; that soft whispers 
will not break their lethargy; that nothing but 
thunder can startle a community, steeped in 
selfish unconcern, to the wrongs of their neigh- 
bor. What can be done, it is asked, without 
strong language? I grant that great moral 
convictions ought to be given out with energy, 
and that the zeal which exaggerates them may 
be forgiven. But exaggerations in regard to 
persons, are not to be so readily forgiven. We 
may use an hyperbole in stating a truth. We 
must not be hyperbolical in setting forth the 
wrong doing of our neighbor. As an example 
of the unjust severity which 1 blame, it may be 
stated, that some among you have been accus- 
tomed to denounce slaveholders as 'robbers and 
man-stealers.' Now, robbery and stealing are 
words of plain signification. They imply that 
a man takes consciously and with knowledge 



12 

, dher. T l1, i to seize 

' j force, the acknow- 

or. Now, is the 

to be cli these crimes ? 

lat the siave he holds is not his 

itrary, is there any part of 

. to w hich in' thinks himself to have 

.' I grant that the delusion is 

a monstrous one. I repel with horror the claim 

of ownership of a human being. I can as 

i I, as of owning 

a man. But do we not know, that tliere are 

. :.t the North, who, regarding the statute- 

. as of equal authority with the Sermon on 

the .Mount, ami looking on legal as synonimous 

with moral right, believe that the civil law can 

te property in a man, as easily as in a brute, 

and who, were they consistent, would think 

to put their parents 1111- 

, should the legislature decree, that 

■, the parent should become the 

slave child? Is it wonderful, then, that 

Jit up in sight of enslaved human 

beings, in the habit of treating them as chat- 

. and amidst laws, religious teachings, and 

ity of institutions, which recognize 

claim, should seriously think them- 

the owners of their fellow-creatures? 

I hat they do vi< w the slave as 

vinir him, they are no 

of robbing and stealing, than one 

who, by misapprehension, 

to him self u hat belongs to 

we authorized to say, that 

l the South, u ho, if they should 

their misapprehension, would choose 

h then; rather than live by 



13 

robbery and crime ? Are all hearts open to our 
inspection? Has God assigned to us his pre- 
rogative of judgment ? Is it not a violation of 
the lows of Christian charity, to charge on 
men, whose general deportment shews a sense 
of justice, such flagrant crimes as robbery and 
theft? It is said, that, by such allowances to 
the master, I have weakened the power of what 
I have written against slavery ; that I have fur- 
nished a pillow lor the conscience of the slave- 
holder. But truth is truth, and we must never 
wink it out of sight for the sake of effect. God 
needs not the help of our sophistry or exagger- 
ation. For the sake of awakening sensibility, 
we must not, in our descriptions, add the weight 
of a feather to the sufferings of the slave, or the 
faintest shade to the guilt of the master. Slave- 
ry indeed, regarded as a violation of man's 
most sacred rights, should always be spoken of 
by us with the deepest abhorrence ; and we 
otitrht not to conceal our fear, that, among those 
who vindicate it, in this free and Christian 
land, there must be many who wilfully shut 
their eyes on its wrongs, who are victims of a 
voluntary blindness, as criminal as known and 
chosen transgression. Let us speak the truth 
and the whole truth, and speak it in the lan- 
guage of strong conviction. But let neither 
policy nor passion carry us beyond the truth. 
Let a severe principle of duty, stronger than 
excitement, watch and preside over all our ut- 
terance. 

Allow me here to speak of what seems to me 
a very objectionable mode of action, which 
your Society are inclined to adopt : I mean, 
the exclusion of slaveholders from the privileges 
of the Christian church. I did hope that the 



14 

partition walls, which an unenlightened zeal has 
bo long erected round the communion table, 
giving way; and that none would be ex- 
cluded, except such as should give proof in 
their lives of hostility to the Christian law. 
That the Lord's Supper should be turned into a 
weapon ol assault on our opponents, is a mon- 
strous abase of it. Will it be said, that the 
holder cannot be a Christian, and must 
therefore be shut out? Do we not know, that 
God has true worshippers in a land of slavery? 
Is adherence to a usage, which has existed for 
ages in the church, an infallible proof of an 
unsanctified mind ? Was not Grimke a Chris- 
tian, whilst a slaveholder? My last conversa- 
tion with that excellent man turned on slave- 
i v : and though he listened patiently to the 
hope, which I expressed, that this evil was to 

e, he gave no response to my wishes and 
hopes. Let it not be said, that by excommu- 

ition, the conscience of the slaveholder will 
be awakened. We must not for this, or any 
oilier good, turn a Christian ordinance from its 
< nd. The Lord's Supper was instituted to 
unite in closer bonds the friends of the com- 
mon Saviour, and through this union to make 
them more receptive of light and purifying in- 
fluence from one another. Let it not be turn- 
ed iuto a brand of discord. The time will un- 
doubtedly come, when good men will shrink 
from Blaveholding more than from death. But 
many a Bincere disciple is at present blinded to 
this outrage on human rights; and he ought 
not to be banished from the table which Christ 
has Bpread for all his friends. 

I and in your writings a mode of excusing 
your severity of language, which I think un- 



15 



sound. You justify yourselves by the strong 
rebukes uttered by Jesus Christ. But Christ 
must be followed cautiously here. Was he not 
a prophet ? Was he not guided by a wisdom 
granted to him alone? Had he not an insight 
into the hearts and characters of men, which 
gave a certainty to his severer judgments? 
Shall the Christian speak with the authority of 
his Lord? Nor is this all. Jesus could re- 
prove severely, without the dangers which be- 
sets all human reproof. His whole spirit was 
love. There was not a prejudice or passion in 
his breast, to darken or distort his judgment. 
He could not err on the side of harshness. Are 
toe so secured? Jesus could say of himself, 
4 I am meek and lowly in heart.' So unbound- 
ed was his generosity and candor, that, the 
agonies of death, he prnyed for the en lies 
who had nailed him to the cross, and urged in 
their behalf the only extenuation which their 
crime would admit. Such a being might safe- 
ly trust himself to his most excited feelings. 
His consciousness of perfect love to his worst 
foes, assured him against injustice. How dif- 
ferent was rebuke from the lips of Jesus, from 
that which breaks from ours ! Had we I een 
present, when he said, 'Alas! for you, Phari- 
sees, hypocrites ! ' we should have heard tones 
which breathed the purest philanthropy. We 
should have seen a countenance, on which the 
indwelling divinity had impressed a celestial 
love. How different were these rebukes from 
the harsh tones and hard looks of man ! 
Christ's denunciations had for their ground- 
work, if I may so speak, a character of perfect 
benignity, sweetness, forgiveness ; and they 
were in harmony with this. They were scat- 



16 



',i a life, which was spent in spread- 
ing - with the munificence of a God. 
You justify your severity by Christ's. Let 
n s gentle* your lives as beneficent 
as his, and I will promise to be contented wit!) 
von; . bukes. 

Having expressed my disapprobation and 
that it is right to close this letter 
with expressing t he deep interest I fee! in you, 
as an association, but as men pledged to 
I of all lawful means for the subversion 

ry. There is but one test by which in- 
dividuals or parties can be judged, and that is 
the principles from which they act, and which 
they are pledged to support. No matter how 
many able men a party may number in its 
ranks ; unless pledged to great principles, it 
must pass away, and its leaders sink into ob- 
livion. There are two great principles to which 
you are devoted, and for which I have always 
honored you. The first is, the freedom of the 
i. This you have not only vindicated with 
your lips fnd pens ; but you have asserted it 
amidst persecutions. The right of a man to 
publish his conviction on subjects of deepest 
em to society and humanity, this you have 
held fast when most men would have shrunk 
from it. This practical assertion of a great 
prin -i; le, 1 hold to be worth more than the 
I i loquent professions of it in public meet- 
ings, or than all the vindications of it in the 
closet. I have thanked you, and thank you 
in, in the name of liberty, for this good 
• ice which you have rendered her. I know 
of pone, to whom her debt is greater. There 
was a time when the freedom of the press 
needed no defenders in our land, for it was 



17 

strong in the love of the people. It was re- 
cognfzed as the pervading life, the conserva- 
tive power of our institutions. A voice raised 
ao-ainst it would have been pronounced moral 
treason. We clung to it as an immutable prin- 
ciple, as a universal and inalienable right. 
We received it as an intuitive truth, as no more 
to be questioned than a law of nature. But 
1 the times are changed, and we change with 
them.' Are there no signs, is there nothing 
to make us fear, that the freedom of speech 
and the press, regarded as a right and a prin- 
ciple, is dying out of the hearts of this people? 
It is not a sufficient answer to say, that the 
vast majority speak and publish their thoughts 
without danger. The question is, whether this 
freedom is distinctly and practically recog- 
nized as every man's right. Unless it stands 
on this ground, it is little more than a name ; 
it has no permanent life. To refuse it to a 
minority, however small, is to loosen every 
man's hold of it, to violate its sacredness, to 
break up its foundation. A despotism, too 
strong for fear, may, through its very strength, 
allo\v°to the mass great liberty of utterance ; 
but in conceding it as a privilege, and not as a 
right, and by withholding it at pleasure from 
offensive individuals, the despot betrays him- 
self as truly, as if he had put a seal on every 
man's lips. That State must not call itsell 
free, in which any party, however small, can- 
not safely speak their minds; in which any 
party are exposed to violence for the exercise 
of a universal right; in which the laws, made 
to protect all, cannot be sustained against brute 
force. The freedom of speech and the press 
seems now to be sharing the lot of all great 
2 



18 

principles. History shows us, that all great 
principles, however ardently espoused for a 
time, have a tendency to fade into traditions, 
to d< -i nerate into a hollow cant, to become 
words of little import, and to remain for dec- 
lamation, when their vital power is gone. At 
such a period, every good citizen is called to 
do what in him lies, to restore their life and 
power. To some, it may be a disheartening 
thought, that the battle of liberty is never to 
end, that its first principles must be establish- 
ed anew, on the very spots where they seemed 
immovably fixed. But it is the law of our be- 
inu, ihat no true good can be made sure with- 
out struggle ; and it should cheer us to think, 
that to struggle for the ri^ht is the noblest use 
of our powers, and the only means of happi- 
ness and perfection. 

Another ground of my strong interest in 
your body is, that you are pledged to another 
principle, far broader than the freedom of the 
prc->, and on which this and all other rights 
repose. You start from the sublimest truth. 
You oppose slavery, not from political or world- 
I. considerations. You take your stand on the 
unutterable worth of every human being, and 
on In- inalienable rights as a rational, moral, 
and immortal child of God. Here is your 
Btrength. Unlike the political parties which 
agit tte the country, you have a principle, and 
the grandest which can unite a body of men. 
Thai you fully comprehend it, or are always 
faithful to it, cannot be affirmed ; but you have 
it, and it is cause of joy to see men seizing it 
rvi n in an imperfect torm. All slavery, all op- 
pressive institutions, all social abuses, spring 
from or involve contempt of human nature. 



19 

The tyrant does not know, who it is whom he 
tramples in the dust. You have caught a 
glimpse of the truth. The inappreciable worth 
of every human being, and the derivation of 
his rights, not from paper constitutions and hu- 
man laws, but from his spiritual and immortal 
nature, from his affinity with God, these are 
the truths, which are to renovate society, by 
the light of which our present civilization will 
one day be seen to bear many an impress or 
barbarism, and by the power of which a real 
brotherhood will more and more unite the now 
divided and struggling family of man. My 
great interest in you lies in your assertion of 
these truths. The liberation of three millions 
of slaves is indeed a noble object ; but a great- 
er work is, the diffusion of principles, by which 
every yoke is to be broken, every government 
to be regenerated, and a liberty, more precious 
than civil or political, is to be secured to the 
world. I know with what indifference the 
doctrine of the infinite worth of every human 
beincr, be his rank or color what it may, is lis- 
tened to by multitudes. But it is not less true, 
because men of narrow and earthly minds can- 
not comprehend it. It is written in blood on 
the cross of Christ, lie taught it when he as- 
cended, and carried our nature to heaven. Tt 
is confirmed by all the inquisitions of philoso- 
phy into the soul, by the progress of the human 
intellect, by the affections of the human heart, 
by man's intercourse with God, by his sacri- 
fices for his fellow creatures. I am not dis- 
couraged by the fact, that this great truth has 
been espoused most earnestly by a party which 
numbers in its ranks few great names. The 
prosperous and distinguished of this world, 



20 

given as they generally are to epicurean self- 
iudulgence and to vain show, are among the 
last to comprehend the worth of a human be- 
ing, to penetrate into the evils of society, or to 
impart to it a fresh impulse. The less pros- 
perous classes furnish the world with its re- 
formers and martyrs. These, however, from 
imperfect culture, are apt to narrow themselves 
to one idea, to fasten their eyes on a single 
evil, to lose the balance of their minds, to 
kindle with a feverish enthusiasm. Let such 
remember, that no man should take on himself 
the ollice of a reformer, whose zeal in a par- 
ticular cause is not tempered by extensive sym- 
pathies and universal love. This is a high 
standard, but not too high for men who have 
started from the great principle of your associ- 
ation. They, who found their efforts against 
oppression on every man's near relation to God, 
on ('very man's participation of a moral and 
immortal nature, cannot without singular in- 
consistency grow fierce against the many in 
their zeal for a few. From a body, founded 
on such a principle, ought to come forth more 
enlightened friends of the race, more enlarged 
philanthropists, than have yet been trained. 
« .11 aid from dishonor the divine truth, which 
you have espoused as your creed and your rule. 
Show forth its energy in what you do and suf- 
fer. Show forth its celestial purity, in your 
freedom from unworthy passions. Prove it to 
be from God, by serene trust in his Providence, 
by fearless obedience of his will, by imitating 
his impartial justice and his universal love. 

I now close this long letter. I have spoken 
the more freely, because I shall probably be 
prevented by various and pressing objects, from 



21 



communicating with you again. In your great 
and holy purpose, you have my sympathies and 
best wishes. I implore for you the guidance 
and blessing of God. 

Very sincerely, your friend, 

WM. E. CHANNING. 



LETTER OF DR. CHANNING. 

1X3= The foregoing Letter has been tendered to us, 
by its author, tor publication in the Liberator. It will 
answerone good purpose, at least — namely, to stimulate 
conversation, excite private and public discussion, and 
thus help to carry on the good work of agitation. 
Nothing is so pregnant with evil, social, political and 
moral, as the public mind in a state of stagnancy ; for 
it then becomes a Dead Sea, in which nothing that has 
life can exist. Whatever, therefore, serves to ruffle its 
surface, or put its water into billowy commotion, — 
from the gentlest breath of heaven to the all-sweeping 
hurricane, — is better than the absence of vitality. So 
this Letter, though it is defective in principle, false in 
its charity, and inconsistent in its reasoning, will doubt- 
less prove useful to the cause of dying humanity ; use- 
ful as a provocative, as better than something worse, as 
a challenge to universal attention. Its spirit is compla- 
cent and amicable; its purpose, unquestionably good; 
its style, elaborate and transpicuous. The motives of. 
its author, in addressing it to the abolitionists of this 
country at the present time, we doubt not are pure, be- 
nevolent, commendable. Dr. Channing, if he is some- 
times cautious even to criminality, has no duplicity. 
We have never distrusted, and certainly do not intend 
to impeach, his sincerity; but sincerity is compatible 
with error not less than with truth : it is neither wisdom 
nor rectitude : it is a divorcement fiom hypocrisy, but 
not necessarily an alliance with right. As a whole. 



(thougl II portion of it is not without value,) this 

Letter contains little to enlighten, reform or elevate pub- 
lic sentiment; lor what is contradictory fails to be 
either instructive or admonitory. 

recent spirited appeal of Dr. Channing from the 
arbitrary decision of the city authorities, respecting the 
opening of Faneuil Kail, as well as his Letter to Henry 
Clay, led us to hope that his vision was becoming more 
. his spirit more intrepid, and his acquaintance 
with the real state of the hearts of slaveholders more 
accurate. But this Letter shows no improvement : — 
nay, it bears marks of new infirmities. 

Its homily to abolitionists upon the christian obliga- 
tion not to resort to carnal weapons in self-defence, or 
in aid of the cause of liberty, finds a sincere response in 
our own bosom, because it is in accordance with our in- 
dividual sentiments. But, with all deference, we ask, 
is it consistent, is it decorous, can it be instructive, for 
a man who rejects the doctrine of non-resistance, to 
enforce it as a religious duty upon others — upon those 
who are most exposed to perils, suffering, and lawless 
outrages of the most flagitious character ? We humbly 
conceive that Dr. Channing is not qualified, at present, 
to instruct abolitionists in relation to • the peace princi- 
ple.' There is a beam in his own eye — a mote only in 
theirs. He confesses thai his late justly venerated 
iri -nl, Dr Worcester, was more long-suffering, pacific, 
and merciful, in principle, towards enemies, than be is 
himself disposed to he ! Again he observes— ' I do not 
Bay, thai a man may in no case defend himself by force.' 
Indeed ! But a greater than Dr. Channing does — Jesus, 
the Prince of Peace. We are not any wiser tor the ex- 
C ption which the Dr. makes : he neglects to designate 
in which a man may ' defend himself by force.' 
But he docs not hesitate to express his ' disapprobation 
of Mr. Lovejoy's resistance,' and also his opinion that 
' it is time for philanthropy to stop, when it can only 



23 

advance by wading through blood.' The theory, then, 
it we rightly apprehend it, is this: 

A cause which is not benevolent will authorize the 
shedding of blood without guilt; that which is, will not; 
so that if 1 kill a robber merely (or my own preserva- 
tion, I do well— but if I lay down my life in defence of 
liberty, the rights of man, and the cause of God, all 
must of course be ' shocked by this incongruity of 
means and ends ' ! Certainly this is a nice distinction. 
{ It God does not allow us to forward a work ot love [in 
a fearful emergency] by fighting for it,' what other work 
may be forwarded at the point ot the bayonet ? If men 
may fight at all, may they not fight for that which is 
most valuable, which most deeply concerns man- 
kind,which generously seeks universal instead of partial 
good'? We should like to know how it happens, that 
abolitionists are obligated to allow themselves to be 
torn in pieces by human tigers, any more than others, 
or why they may not fight for liberty like others. 

To the other complaints ot Dr. Channing against the 
use of ' hard language ' by the abolitionists, against 
calling slaveholders robbers and men-stealers, and ex- 
cluding them from the communion table, we have bare- 
ly room to say, that they originate clearly in the un- 
willingness ot Dr. C. to judge of the tree by its fruits. 
We may denounce sin in the abstract, or even in the 
lump, as much as we please ; but to say, 'Thou art the 
iri an,'— to identify and arraign men as sinners, ah ! that 
is not to be tolerated by decency, good manners, or 
christian charity ! But to show how utterly incoherent 
and strangely contradictory is Dr. C's language on sla- 
very, we" subjoin the following moral cross readings 
from his writings. Here are paradoxes ! 

DR. CHANNING versus DR. CHANNING. 
Republicans fy Christians alias Robbers & Menstealers. 

NOT GUILTY. GUILTY. 

'Abolitionism seems to me 'He, who cannot see a 
to have been intolerant to- brother, a child of God, a 

wards the slaveholders, and man possessing all the rights 



24 



towards those in the free 
Btat< a who oppose them, or 
who refuse to take part in 
their measures. I say first, 
towards the slaveholder. 
The abolitionist has not 
spoken, and cannot speak 
ist slavery too strongly. 
IN o language can exceed the 
enormity of the wrong. But 
the whole class of slavehold- 
ers often meet a treatment 
in anti-slavery publications 
which is felt to be unjust, and 
iscertainlj unwise. . . .The 
man who holds slaves for 
gain, is the worst of robbers; 
for he selfishly robs his fellow 
creatines not only of their 
property, but of themselves. 
He is ihe worst of tyrants; 
for whilst absolute govern- 
ments spoil men of civil, he 
strips them of personal 
rights. But I do not, can- 
no i believe.that the MAJOR- 
ITY of slaveholders are of 
the character now described. 
1 believe that the MAJORI- 
TY, could they be persuad- 
ed of the consistency of eman- 
cipation with the well-being 
of the colored race and with 
social oi iler, (!) woidd relin- 
quish their hold on the .-lave, 
and saci ifice their imagined 
propci t\ in him to the claims 
of justice and humanity. 
They shrink from emancipa- 
ti .n, because it seems to them 
a precipice. Having seen 
the colored man continually 
dependent on foreign guid- 
ance and control, they think 
him incapable of providing 
lor himself. Having seen 
the laboring class kept by 
. thej [eel as if the re- 
moval of his restraint would 



of humanity, under a ?kin 
darker than" his own, wants 
the vision of a Christian. 
He worships the Outward. 
The Spirit is not yet re- 
vealed to him.'— [Work on 
Slavery,, p. 10, Introduction.] 

♦ The spirit of Christianity 
is universal justice. It re- 
spects all ihe rights of all 
beings. It suffers no being, 
however obscure, to be wrong- 
ed, without condemning the. 
lorong-docr.'' — p. 11 do. 

' The slaveholder claims 
the slave as his property. 
The very idea of a slave is, 
that he belongs to another, 
that he is bound to live and 
labor for another, t< be anoth- 
er's instrument, and to make 
another's will his habitual 
law, however adverse to his 
own. Another owns him, 
and, of course, has a right to 
his time and strength, aright 
to the fruits of his labor, a 
right to task him without his 
consent, and to determine the 
kind and duration of his toil, 
a right to confine him to any 
bounds, a right to extort the 
required work by stripes, a 
right, in a word, to use him 
as a tool, without contract,, 
against his will, and in de- 
nial of his right to dispose of 
himself, or to use his power 
for his own good.' — p. 13. 

' The very essence of slave- 
ry is, to put a man defence- 
less into the hands of anoth- 
er.'— p. 17. 

' Now this claim of prop- 
erty in a human being is al- 



25 

be a signal to universal law- together false, groundless. 
leSsness and crime. That No such right of man in man 
such opinions absolve from all can exist. To hold and treat 
blame those who perpetuate him as property is to inflict a 
slavery, I do not sav. . . great wrong, to incur die 
Still, "while there is much to guilt of oppression. 1 his 
be condemned in the preva- position there is a difficulty 
lent feelings at the South, we in maintaining, on account 
have no warrant for denying of its exceeding obviousness 
to all slaveholders, moral and It is too plain for proof. 
religious excellence. The To defend it is like trying to 
whole history of the world confirm a self-evident truth. 
shows us, that a culpable The man who, on hearing 
blindness, in regard to one the claim to property in man, 
class of obligations, may con- does not see and feel that it 
sist with severe reverence is A CRUEL USUKI A- 
for religious and moral TION, is hardly to be reach- 
principles, so far astheyare ed by reasoning; for it is 
understood. In estimating hard to find any plainer prin- 
men's characters, we must ciples than what he begins 
never forget the disadvanta- with denying.'— p. U. 
ges under which they labor. 

Slavery upheld as it is at the ' If one man may be right- 
South, by the deepest preju- fully reduced to slavery, then 
dices of education, by the there is not a human being 
sanction of laws, bv the pre- on whom the same chain may 
Bcription of ages", and by not be imposed. Now let 
real difficulties attending every reader ask hira.-elt tins 
emancipation, cannot be ea- question: Could 1, can 1, be 
fi ilv viewed in that region as rightfully seized, and made 
it- appears to more distant an article ot property; »»e 
and impartial observers. Tim made a passive instrument 
Iratefulness of the system of another's will and pleas- 
ought to be strongly exposed, me; be subjected to aiv.lh- 
and it cannot be exposed too er's irresponsible power; >e 
stronafy; but the hatefulness subjected to stripes at anotn- 
iiiust°n«»t be attached to all er's will; be denied the con- 
who sUstjih slaverv. There trol and use of my own limbs 
are pure and generous spirits and faculties (or my own 
at the South : they are to be good? Does any man, so 
honored the more for the sore questioned, doubt, waver, 
trials amidst which their vir- look about him lor an an- 
lues have gained strength, swer? Is not t he rep I, g. y 
The abolitionists, in their en immediately, ,i£ .Tin ' '] * 
iS f S eem to have over- LY, BY HIS WHOLE IN- 
JSked hese truths in a great WARD BEING 1 Does not 
decree, bv their intolerance an unhesitating, unerring 
toward the slaveholder; have conviction spring up in my 
felt toward him indignation breast, that no oi her man 
rather than sympathy; and can acquire such a right in 



2G 



tkened tho effect of their 
just invectives against the sys- 
tem which he upholds.' — 
[Letter to Birney.] 

' A man born amongslaves, 
accustomed to this relation 
from his birth, taught its ne- 
cc -ity by venerated parents, 
associating it with all whom 
he reveres, and too familiar 
with its evils to see and feel 
their magnitude, can hardly 
be expected to look on slave- 
ry as it appears to more i in - 
partial and d istant observers. 
Let it not he said, that, when 
new light is offered him, he is 
criminaHn rejecting it. Are 
we all willing to receive new 
iight '? Can we wonder that 
such a man should be slow to 
be convinced of the criminali- 
ty of an abuse sanctioned by 
prescription, and which has 
BO interwoven itself with all 
the habits, employments, and 
economy of life, that he can 
hardly conceive of the exis- 
tence of society without this 
all-pervading element ? May 
he not he true to his convic- 
tions ofilutv iii other relations, 
though he grievously err in 
this I'— pp. 57, 58. 

'The slave; virtually suffers 
the wrong of robbery, though 

with utter unconsciousness 
on the part • ■' those who in- 
dict it.'— p. 53. 

' It is possible to abhor 
and oppose bad institutions, 
and \ et to ab.-'ain from in- 
discriminate condemnation of 
those who cling to them, and 
even to see in their ranks 
greater virtue than in oiir- 
^. It is true, and ought 



myself? Do we not repel in- 
dignantly and with horror 
the thought- of being i educed 
to the condition of tools and 
chattels to a fellow-creature \ 
Is there any moral truth 
more deeply rooted in us, 
than that such a degrada- 
tion would be an infinite 
wrong? And if this im- 
pression be a delusion, on 
what single moral conviction 
can we rely! This deep as- 
surance, that we cannot be 
rightfully made another's 
property, does not rest on the 
line of our skins, or the place 
of our birth, or our strength 
or wealth. These tilings do 
not enter our thoughts. The 
consciousness of inde^'ruc- 
tible rights is apart of our 
moral being. In tasting 
the yoke from ourselves as 
an xinspeakable wrong, we 

CONDEMN OURSELVES AS 
WRONG-DOERS AND OP- 
PRESSORS IN LAYING IT 
ON ANY WHO SHARE OUR 
NATURE." — p. 15, 16. 

' Who of us can unhlush- 
ingly lift his head and say 
that God lias written '• Mas- 
ter" there'? or who can 
show the word ; * Slave" en- 
graved on his brother's 
brow % '—p. 20. 

• To deny the right of a 
human being to himself, to 
his own limbs an i faculties, 

to his energy <>f body and 
mind, is an absurdity too 
gross to be confab d by any 
thing but a simple state- 
ment. Yet. this absurdity is 
involved in the idea of his be- 
longing to another.' — ' If a 
human being cannot without 



27 



to be cheerfully acknowledg- 
ed, that in the slaveholding 

States may he found some of 
the greatest names of our his- 
tory, and, what is still more 
important, bright examples 
£i. e. among slaveholders] of 
private virtue and Christian 
love.' — p. 60. 

' Their are masters who 
have thrown off the natural 
prejudices of their position, 
zvho see slavery as it is, and 
who hold the slave chiefly, if 
not wholly, from disinterest- 
ed considerations; and these 
deserve great praise. They 
deplore and abhor the insti- 
tution ; but believing that par- 
tial emancipation, in the pres- 
ent condition of society, 
would bring unmixed evil on 
bond and free, they think 
themselves bound to continue 
the relation, until it shall be 
dissolved by comprehensive 
and systematic measures of 
the state. There are many 
of them who would shudder 
as much as we at reducing a 
freeman to bondage, but who 
are appalled by what seem 
to them the perils and diffi- 
culties of liberating multi- 
tudes, born and brought up 
to that condition. — There are 
many, who, nominally hold- 
ing the slave as property, 
still hold him for his own 
good and for the public order, 
and would blush to retain 
him on other grounds. Are 
such men to be set down 
among the unprincipled V pp. 
59, 60. 

* Sympathy with the slave 
has often degenerated into in- 
justice towards the master. 



infinite injustice, be seized 
as property, then he cannot, 
without, equal wro»g, be 
held and used as such." — p. 
21. 

' If the slave receive inju- 
ry without me > sure at the 
first moment of i lie outrage, 
is he less injured by being 
held fast the second or the 
third 1 Does the duration 
of the wrong, theincrease of 
it by continuance, convert it 
into right % ' — ' Now the 
ground, on which the seizure 
of the African on his own 
shore is condemned, is, that 
that he is a man who has by 
his nature a right to be free. 
Ought not. then, the same 
condemnation to light on the 
continuance of his yokel '— 
p. 22. 

* Now the true owner of 
a human being i-; made mani- 
fest to all. It is Himself. 
No brand on the slave was 
ever so conspicuous as the 
mark of property which God 
has set on him. God, in mak- 
ing him a rational and moral 
being, has put a glorious 
stamp on him, which all the 
slave-legislation and slave- 
markets of worlds cannot ef- 
face.' — ' From his very na- 
ture it follows, that so to 
seize him is to offer an in- 
su't to his Maker, an I to in- 
flict aggravated social wrong. 
Into every human being. God 
has breathed an immortal 
spirit, more precious than the 
whole outward creation. No 
earthly or celestial language 
can exaggerat;- the worth ofa 
human being.' — ' i'i I God 
make s«ch a being to he 



28 



I wish to be understood, that, 
in ranking slavery among the 
greatest wrongs, 1 speak of 
the injurs endured by the 
Blave, and not of the char- 
i', U r of the master. 'J hese 
are distinct points. The for- 
mer does not determine the 
latter. . . Because a great 
injury is done to another, it 
docs nut follow that he who 
does it is a depraved man ; 
for he maj do it unconscious- 
ly, and. still more, may do it 
in the belief that be confers a 
good . . . We must judge 
others, not by our light, but 
by their own. We must take 
their place, and consider u hat 
allowance we in their posi- 
tion might justly expect . . • 
Our ancestors committed a 
deed now branded as piracy. 
Were they therefore the ofT- 
Bcouring of the earth'? Were 
:i .1 -urn- m them among the 
best of their times ? The ad- 
ministration of religion in al- 
most all past ages has been a 
violation ol the sacred rights 
of conscience. How many 
sects have persecuted and 
shed blood ! Were their 
members, therefore, monsters 
of depravit) !' — pp. 56, 57. 

1 As an example of the un- 
just sevei ity which I blame, 
it may be stated, that some 
among \ n have been accus- 
tomed to denounce slavehold- 
ers as ' robbers and man- 
is. ' Now , robbery and 
stealing arc u ords ol plain 
signification. They imply 
thai a in in has consciously & 
with knowledge taken what 
belong* iu another. To steal 
is to seize privily, to rob is 
to seize by foice, the ac- 



owned as a tree or a brute % 
How plainly was he made to 
exercise, imlold, improve his 
highest powers; made for a 
moral, spiritual good ! and 
how is he wronged, and his 
Creator opposed, when he 
is forced and broken into a 
tool to another's physical en- 
joyment ! ' ' The sacrifice of 
such a being to another's will, 
to another's present, outward, 
ill-comprehended good, is the 
greatest violence which can. 
be offered to any creature 
of God.'— p. 23, 25, 26, 27. 

' What ! own a spiritual 
being, a being made to know 
and adore God, and who is 
to outlive the sun and stars ! 
Should we not deem it a 
wrong which no punish- 
ment could expiate, were 
one of our children seized as 
property, and driven by the 
whip to toil 1 And shall 
God's child, dearer to him 
than an only son to a hu- 
man parent, be thus degra- 
ded 1 Every thing else may 
be owned in the universe ^ 
but a moral, rational being 
cannot be property. Suns 
and stars may be owned, 
but not the lowest spirit. 
Touch any tiling but this. 
Lay not your hand on God's? 
rational offspring. The 
whole spiritual world cries 
out, Forbear ! ' — p. 29. 

' I have taken it for grant- 
ed that no reader would be so 
wanting in moral discrimina- 
tion and moral feeling, as to, 
urge that men may rightfully 
be seized and In Id as pioper- 
ty, because, vin ious govern- 
ments have su ordained. — - 



29 



knowledged property of one's 
neighbor. Now, is the slave- 
holder to he charged with 
these crimes'? Does he know 
(!) that the slave he holds is 
not his ownl On the con- 
trary, is there any part of 
his property, to which he 
thinks himself to have a strong 
er right! . . . Do we not know 
that there are men at the 
North, who, regarding the 
statute-book as of equal au- 
thority with the sermon on 
the Mount, and looking on 
legal as synonymous with 
moral right, believe that the 
civil law can create property 
in a man, as easily as in a 
brute] . . We are sure that 
they [slaveholders] do view 
the slave as property; and 
thus viewing him, they are 
no more guilty of robbery and 
stealing than one of you 
would be, who, by misappre- 
hension, (!) should appropri- 
ate to himself what belongs to 
another (!) And are we au- 
thorised to say, that there are 
none at the South, who, if 
they should discover their 
misapprehension, (!) would 
choose to impoverish them- 
selves, rather than live by 
robbery and crime! Are all 
hearts open to our inspection! 
Has God assigned to us his 
prerogative of judgment? Is 
it not a violation of the laws 
of Christian charity, to charge 
on men, whose general deport- 
ment shows a sense of justice, 
such flagrant crimes as rob- 
bery and theft!' — [Letter to 
Abolitionists.] 

* Allow me to speak of 
what seems to me a very ob- 
jectionable mode of action, 



What ! is human legislature 
the measure of right 1 Are 
God's laws to be repealed by 
man's!'— p. 29. 

1 That same inward princi- 
ple, which teaches a man 
what he is bound to do tooth- 
ers, teaches equally, and at 
the same instant, what others 
are bound to do to him . . . 
Accordingly, there is no deep- 
er principle in human nature 
than the consciousness of 
rights.'— p. 34. 

' Slavery violates, not one, 
but all human rights; and vi- 
olates them, not incidentally, 
but necessarily, systemati- 
cally, from its very nature.' 
'In truth, no robbery is so 
great as that to which the 
slave is habitually subject- 
ed.'— pp. 50, 53. 

' The plea «f benefit to the 
slave and the state avails him 
[the slaveholder] nothing.' — 
p. 61. 

t We can apply to slavery 
no worse name than its own. 
?den have always shrunk in- 
stinctively from this state, as 
the most degraded. No pun- 
ishment, save death, has been 
more dreaded, and to avoid it 
death has often been endur- 
ed.'— p. 67. 

' Is man to be trusted with 
absolute power over his fellow- 
creature! . . . Absolute pow- 
er always corrupts human na- 
ture, more or less.' — 'Sup- 
pose the master to be ever so 
humane. Still, he is not al- 
ways watching over his slave. 
He has his pleasures to attend 



30 



which your Society are in- 
clined lo adopt— 1 mean, the 
exclusion of slaveholders 
from the privileges of the 
Christian church. I did hope 
that the partition walls, which 
an unenlightened zeal lias so 
long erected round the com- 
munion tahle, were giving 
way ; and that none would he 
excluded, except such as 
should give proof in their 
lives of hostility to the Chris- 
tian law. That the Lord's 
supper should be turned into 
a weapon of assault on our op- 
ponents, is a monstrous abuse 
of it. Will it be said, that 
the slaveholder cannot be a 
Christian, and must therefore 
be shut out? Do we not 
know, that God has true 
worshippers in a land of 
slavery \ Is adherence to a 
usage, (!) which has existed 
for ages in the Church, an in- 
fallible proof of i • unsancti- 
fiedmind! . . . The Lord's 
supper was institul id to unite 
in closer bonds the friends 
of the common Savior, and 
through this union to make 
them more receptive of light 
and purifying influence from 
one another. Let it not be 
turned into a brand of dis- 
cord (!) The time will un- 
doubtedly come, when good 
men will shrink from slave- 
holding more than from death. 
But many a sincere disciple is 
at present blinded to this out- 

R \ (, I, o\ Ml- M \ N KIGHTS; 

and he ought not to be ban- 
ished from the table which 
Christ has spread for all his 
friends.' — [Ibid*] 



to. Tie is often absent. His 
terrible power must be dele- 
gated. And to whom is it 
delegated 1 To men prepared 
to govern others, by having 
learned to govern themselves! 
To men having a deep inter- 
e?t in the slaves 1 . . Who 
does not know, how often the 
overseer pollutes the planta- 
tion by his licentiousness, as 
well as scourges it by his se- 
verity 1 In the hands of such 
a man, the lash is placed. To 
such a man is committed the 
most fearful trust on earth ! 
For his cruelties, the master 
must answer, as truly as if 
they were his own.' — pp. 87, 
SS. 

'The slave must meet CRU- 
EL TREATMENT, either 
inwardly or outwardly. Eith- 
er the soul or the body must 
receive the blow. Either the 
flesh must be tortured, or the 
spirit be struck down.' — 'It 
is a usurpation of the Divine 
dominion, and its natural in- 
fluence is to produce a spirit 
of superiority to Divine as 
well as to human laws.' — « Its 
direct tendency is to annihi- 
late the control of Christiani- 
ty.'— pp. 91, 92, 93. 



31 

THE TREE KNOWN BY ITS FRUITS. 
The following brief extracts are taken from a speech of 
William Goodell, delivered at the annual mseling of the 
Massachusetts A. S. Society in Boston, January, 1336 : 

2. 4 It is ivrong to impeach men's motives' So 
says the oracle of fastidious decorum ! Ah ! Is it? 
Then, of course, it is wrong to reprove men's sins ; 
for there is no sin without wicked and selfish mo- 
tives. What broader shelter can Sin desire than 
this? Only imagine a Nathan reproving his mon- 
arch, with a very courtly disclaimer of impeaching 1 
his motives ! — Listen to the meek and lowly Sa- 
viour — ' Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hy- 
pocrites.' Did he disclaim an impeachment of their 
motives ? — Take a lesson from the courteous Apos- 
tle — 'Thou child of the Devii ! Thou enemy of all 
righteousness.' But ' pray do not understand me, 
good Mr. Simon Magus, as impeaching any gentle- 
man's ves!' What would you think of such 
an Ap ' ? 

3. ' ' '>■ betrays an unchristian spirit.' So says 
moder , corum, whenever any one manifests any 
moral indignation against oppression and crime! — 
Our ol lioned Divines used to tell us of a holy 
and an . nholy indignation. Modern decorum has 
rendered the distinction obsolete ; except, perhaps, 
when 'gentlemen of property and standing' give 
demonstration of their wrath against the reprovers 
of sin ! 

Go, ye fastidious ones, and learn what this mean- 
eth. 'God is angry with the wicked every day.' 
' Be ye therefore followers of God as dear children.' 
' I beheld the transgressors and was grieved.' ' Do 
1 not hate them that hate thee ?' ' Ye that fear the 
Lord, hate evil.' 'Be angry and sin not.' 'Jesus 
looked round upon them with an<rn-, being grieved 
at the hardness of their hearts.' The courtly Caia- 
phas pprhaps might have thought he manifested an 
unchristian spirit! 

4. Bit the most attractive and subtle form of 
this modern decorum is found in the very acute 






32 



and philosophical distinction which separaels the 
sinner from his sin ; the actor from the action. 
The guardians of our Churches, a fev* years ago, 
were valiant in combatting the ingenious theory, 
:h talked of punishing the sin without touching 
a hair on the head of the sinner! But the greater 
part of them have since made wonderful proficiency 
in the same school, and have left their polemic 
tutors altogether in the back ground! Our most 
strenuous -contenders for the faith,' — at least a 
large portion of then) — to save the risk of punishing 
the sin as it alights from the back of the sinner, 
have fairly made the discovery that sin exists WITH- 
OUT any sinner at all! Oh, yes ! There is thejt 
without a thief! — Robbery without a robber! — In- 
stead of saying, as in olden time — 'Thou art the 
man, 1 we must now say, 'Thou art the sin — No! 
Not the sin! The mistake, the ' calamity /' — In- 
stead of saying, ' By their fruits shall ye know 
THEM,' we should rather say — ' Hy the fruits ye 
shall not know whether the tree be good or evil, or 
whether there he any tree at ail !' 

It is humiliating to rind so splendid, and in many 
respects, so admirable a work as that of Dr. Chai- 
ning, despoiled of its beauty, and rifled of its power 
by so miserable a fallacy. Many of our friends, I 
am aware, have criticised the other errors of the 
book, without seeming to have detected this primary 
source of them all. Nay — in some instances, while 
seeming almost to swallow the gilded hook them- 
selves. Dr. Channing takes many exceptions to 
our statements and measures. But it would be 
to show that, every one of them originates in 
this fallacy. Yes ! [f Dr. Channing could only be 
persuaded to say that he who commits robbery is a 
robber, and that he who steals is a thief, he would 
become, not almost, but altogether, such an Aboli- 
tionist as ourselves. 'Little children, let no man 
deceive you' by this fanciful separation of the actor 
from the action. — ' He that doeth righteousness is 
righteous.' But 'lie that committeth sin is of the 
Evil One.' 



LBJa'l 



